IC just means that specific system would become non-functional if it did not have one of its parts.

Wrong. If a system earlier had more parts, then the system could evolve, such that later parts would be non-redundant.

Take a mouse trap, as a perfect example of an IC system (even if it's a rhetorical device that's not meant for any argument). Say that mouse trap earlier had a poisonous bait, then the trap would work perfectly well with the whupper removed, albeit slower. (Behe's mouse trap doesn't work at all, because it has no bait, so is an incorrect example of IC, not having worked in the first place. Behe's mouse trap requires a cow, or human to grow the wheat products.)

Quote

The point of IC is how did all the parts get there in a gradual way if there is no functional precursor.

Creationists often laugh at Evolutionists, for not showing minute changes in species in the fossil record. We are happy to debate IC, if you show a fossil that grew something IC, in a 1 year period.

Is Behe's mouse trap a conventional mouse trap, because you would need a human to load the spring? I can think of some designs that could self load, with a solar panel, or use the energy of a mouse, as it dropped into a 1km pit, using a thin string and dynamo. A really effective mouse trap is a bucket full of water, with a stick on the top, but I can see how that might evolve from a puddle, if a tree fell on it.

If the mouse trap does require a human to load it, then I can see how it is IC, because a human is IC, because only God can create a human.

I'm wondering if Dr Cut & Paste would stoop so low, as to accept someone arguing on his side, quite obviously lying, and getting all the official facts wrong.

Oh, you're just talking about human reproduction? Next time, specify that. I was talking about animal reproduction in general and the effects on generational levels of organisms....

Quick reply. Jaime I don't need to restrict myself to human reproduction to show that your generalisations about "fecundity" are simplistic and don't necessarily hold up in nature. Contrary to your statement:

Actually, it is a response to environmental pressures. The fecundity of a species tends to change depending on the kind of pressure a species faces; if food is short, organisms become less fecund, whereas if predators or disease hit a species hard, they become more fecund.

Predation on birds - very common finding that realised fecundity drops - another example of the exact opposite to what you said It's because breeding activities are disrupted during nest defence, and eggs and chicks are taken. The impacts carry on for many generations - basically for as long as the predation pressure remains. Relief only comes if the birds depart the scene to nest in an entirely different location or find nest sites out of reach of the predators, or if the predator numbers decline or they move on to happier hunting grounds.

Anyway, I'm still conceding that point, because there are mechanisms that work as you said they do

The Chernobyl disaster was only a single generation ago, though - what was it, 1986? There simply hasn't been time for the increased likelihood of offspring deaths to have the effects I predicted on fecundity. Give it a generation or two - ....

This is also not quite right. Humans don't reproduce in generational batches. There is a continual procession of people reaching reproductive age since Chernobyl. Many of those reaching peak reproductive age are already now "second generation". Yet the local decline in realised fecundity continues. It is not local fecundity that will "respond". It is the purging effects of negative selection coupled with migration from other areas that will eventually make it appear like a fecundity "response".

ok, pretty confident they have not proven that this self catalyss accounts for self replication at the beginning. Another example of "just so" conjecture.

lol. The Discovery Institute will say that. Sure it can't be "proven" but the process has been sufficiently demonstrated to be considered highly probable. Only a nong would refuse to consider it as being plausible.

Moreover, this doesn't explain how DNA originated b/c doesn't seem probably ttat you go from no-code to a code by randomness in various chemical reactions.

What you don't comprehend (your belief system makes it inadmissible) is that genetic material is inherently selfish. Any changes to primordial templates that enhance self-catalysis (for example: adaptation to free monomer abundance, or polymer folding, or molecular interaction with other catalysts etc) will immediately be amplified and conserved. That is the genesis of encoded information. But you are not permitted to admit this - you will be shunned by your creationist friends if you do.

3) Jaimehlers says the creationists are wrong on both counts. Jaimehlers says that neutral mutations are more common than harmful mutations, and carrying those neutral mutations eventually allows for complexity to develop.

4) I disagree with Jaimehlers that neutral mutations are more common. I've explained that it only looks like that because previous neutral mutations can persist for long periods. Whereas with new mutations the majority are deleterious. My rationale is that negative selection is constantly purging deleterious mutations (mainly by killing things or making them infertile), and when inherent population fecundity restores the population numbers the genes with good and neutral mutations are amplified.

5) I also say that building on neutral mutations is only one pathway to complexity - there are several more. Probably easier pathways are by gene duplication (then through random changes to the less conserved redundant gene copy), and accidental acquisition of large amounts of DNA from other species. (I'm not sure if Jaimehlers agrees with me on this, but he probably does because it's classic evolution theory.)

6) Jaimehlers has called me out to support my claim that bad mutations are more common. (I will do my best with this shortly.)

7) The reason I'm being so pedantic about all this is that creationists 'know' they are right about the destructive bias of random mutations, and the challenge in that for building complexity. Denying this does our case no favours - sure there are good examples of point mutations leading to novel function, but it's not very common. I say the better way to deflate the creationist bubble is to admit the limitations of mutation but understand the population dynamics (negative selection and fecundity) and all the other powerful mechanisms that do give rise to complexity, sometimes even relying on the destruction caused by mutations to whittle away the scaffold upon which complexity was built.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

"I don't know how life began. I know there isn't a God. Therefore random mutations managed to lead to the various complex systems of lifeforms. One random mutation after another added up to create a heart, a brain, an immune system, an eye, etc. It's Science, you guys"

Bzzzt. Wrong. We've seen no evidence for any gods, so there's no reason to believe they exist.

Quote

Therefore random mutations managed to lead to the various complex systems of lifeforms. One random mutation after another added up to create a heart, a brain, an immune system, an eye, etc. It's Science, you guys"

Which has nothing to do with how life began, nor does it have anything to do with gods.

"I don't know how life began. I know there isn't a God. Therefore random mutations managed to lead to the various complex systems of lifeforms. One random mutation after another added up to create a heart, a brain, an immune system, an eye, etc. It's Science, you guys"

Except this isn't anyone's argument. It is just an attempt by DrTesla to try to dismiss arguments in favor of evolutionary theory without rebutting them first. Frankly, without even making an attempt to understand them first. In short, it's a way for him to preserve his own ignorance about evolutionary theory, so he can continue to advance arguments from ignorance/incredulity rather than having to learn about the subject he is trying to dismiss.

The only thing he actually accomplishes with inane posts like this is to demonstrate that he's ignorant of the subject and unwilling to rectify that state of affairs. But he isn't willing to admit that he's ignorant, or that virtually his entire argument is based on that ignorance - because to do so would be to undercut any grounds he has for objecting to evolutionary theory in the first place (not to mention that most people don't like admitting that they're ignorant of something). So instead, he ignores or dismisses arguments against him and arguments that support evolutionary theory, and then repeats or restates his original arguments as if they were still valid, when in fact they've been largely debunked.

"I don't know how life began. I know there isn't a God. Therefore random mutations managed to lead to the various complex systems of lifeforms. One random mutation after another added up to create a heart, a brain, an immune system, an eye, etc. It's Science, you guys"

Its funny how you assume i believe in abiogenesis.

Although you are correct, i do.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

"I don't know how life began. I know there isn't a God. Therefore random mutations managed to lead to the various complex systems of lifeforms. One random mutation after another added up to create a heart, a brain, an immune system, an eye, etc. It's Science, you guys"

I have said this multiple times. I DO NOT ASSUME THERE IS NO GOD! And neither do I assume there is one either (like you). YOU are the one making the assumptions here (arguments from ignorance and incredulity) and claims which require justification and sound evidence (which you have failed at supporting). Stop f***ing twisting the facts and misrepresenting our positions!!!!! The moderator should ban you for this alone (see below)! If you think a deity did something (whatever that means) you need to DEMONSTRATE IT! But it's obvious you don't like the scientific process, so you want to take the lazy mans road and JUST ASSUME IT. Well, sorry! You cannot assume your position in science. You need actual evidence that has explanatory power - not bald faced assertions based upon logically fallacious arguments (as you keep dong over and over here like a child). Myself, and many others here, have dully noted your perpetual immature use of logical fallacies, to which your only response is to continue with even more logical fallacies and ad hoc assertions! You clearly do not care about truth. Instead you demonstrate confirmation bias and a sole purpose of protecting your precious emotionally based presuppositions about a "designer" (of the gaps) who you assume made life. So you aren't actually interested in doing science here. You want to make your religious faith into science by use of logical fallacies. FAIL AGAIN. Your irrationality simply will not be tolerated, regardless of how many different ways you attempt it. You don't know how we got here either, but the difference is you are just too damn cowardly to admit it.

Go study the science b/c right now you have nothing but the infection of willful ignorance and credulity.

Quote

-Trolling other forum members, grudge matches, soap-opera dramas, and other actions that staff members deem to be designed to disrupt threads or provoke hostile emotional responses from other forum members will not be tolerated.-Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against their arguments.]

"I don't know how life began. I know there isn't a God. Therefore random mutations managed to lead to the various complex systems of lifeforms. One random mutation after another added up to create a heart, a brain, an immune system, an eye, etc. It's Science, you guys"

You are looking at this the wrong way.

Initially, man believed that life was proof of God, since it was bamboozling how any of it could have got here.

There is one proof of a god that we still can't wave away, and that is the existence of the universe. But a different type of god could have created the universe.

Then we go and find a mechanism that explains how life could have created itself. This leads to a problem with God. Is God the type of chap who can create life using evolution, or is God the type of chap who needs to meddle, in order to deliberately create humans?

In our mind, there are two different types of God: One is a personal God, who looks over our shoulders, and the other is a pan-dimensional entity that may or may not give a shit.

Humans have decided to look for the character of a god, in what lies around us, for confirmatory reasons. The trouble is, that what lies around us, gives us no clues to the character of a god, since evolution looks like a fairly good way of explaining the problem, and it produces harsh, gory life, that's consistent with a God who doesn't really give a shit.

If we saw more perfection around us, and less Africans with worms eating their eyeballs, then we could be convinced that God gives a shit. Since God obviously doesn't give a shit, and is determined to hide himself, then it's more likely that evolution is correct, since it looks correct in the fossil record. Thus we have another pillar of evidence that you have ignored.

Evidence:

God hides, so hand-waving about IC will not find him, because he has probably hidden better than thatGod likes to starve babies, which is consistent with God generally being absent, and having no power in this worldThe fossil record has not shown us anything that can't be explained by evolution.

I care more about my daughters learning mathematics, physics, writing and other useful stuff.

Darwin is just philosophy stuff in the end, it isn't a useful tool that you can apply in your life. Your belief on origine of species has no bearing on your success, many MDs don't think Darwin evol is legit. You guys make it seem like the Foundation of Science much like Jesus freaks think the Bible is the Foundation of their beliefs.

but Darwin evol foundation is built on quicksand and I have exposed it as a fraud.

You know I am really impressed, Dr T, with the way you have destroyed a key theory in science. All you have to do is to write it up and send it to Nature to publish and you will make your name. Given this might even get you a Nobel prize, I'd get going straight away and get your name in the history books for ever. There's just one thing, though, you will have a few biologists get at you with some annoying data but I'm sure you can convince them.

Theoretical is fine.Actually, let me ask you a question. How high do you think the rate of lethal mutations is? A ballpark estimate is fine.

Rather than me doing a mildly educated guess, here is some evidence from greater experts than I'll ever be:

Quote

One of the earliest theoretical studies of the distribution of fitness effects was done by Motoo Kimura, an influential theoretical population geneticist. His neutral theory of molecular evolution proposes that most novel mutations will be highly deleterious, with a small fraction being neutral. Hiroshi Akashi more recently proposed a bimodal model for DFE, with modes centered around highly deleterious and neutral mutations. Both theories agree that the vast majority of novel mutations are neutral or deleterious and that advantageous mutations are rare, which has been supported by experimental results. One example is a study done on the distribution of fitness effects of random mutations in vesicular stomatitis virus. Out of all mutations, 39.6% were lethal, 31.2% were non-lethal deleterious, and 27.1% were neutral.

Because more DNA changes are harmful than are beneficial, negative selection plays an important role in maintaining the long-term stability of biological structures by removing deleterious mutations. Thus, negative selection is sometimes also called purifying selection or background selection.

One study on the comparison of genes between different species of Drosophila suggests that if a mutation does change a protein, this will probably be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial

Our analysis suggests that approximately 95% of all nonsynonymous mutations that could contribute to polymorphism or divergence are deleterious, and that the average proportion of deleterious amino acid polymorphisms in samples is approximately 70%.

So the findings in different species and study methodologies confirm what I’m saying about most mutations being harmful. Of course many factors impact these studies and not all results can be perfectly adjusted for them. Dominant lethals, by their lethal nature, just don’t present themselves for study. Recessive lethals get purged in bottlenecks or bouts of local inbreeding. Some deleterious mutations can “surf” to higher frequencies on local waves of fecundity. Some are held in relatively stable polymorphisms by competing pressures e.g. the famous sickle cell anaemia example you quoted.

But the key to understanding the problem of damage caused by point mutations is that many genes make proteins (or regulate them). Proteins are not genetic information – they are 3D products that need to operate in a 3D molecular environment in which they’ve already adapted over many generations through natural selection. So structural proteins are quite sensitive to amino acid substitutions that alter their 3D structure, and in enzymes the 3D structure is particularly critical to catalytic function. It’s easier to stuff up the optimised 3D fit of folded proteins than it is to have changes with no effect or enhancements. But negative selection works steadily to cleanse the problems .

Quote

Furthermore, mutating an amino acid to a residue with significantly different properties could affect the folding and/or activity of the protein. There is therefore usually strong selective pressure to remove such mutations quickly from a population.

In the virus case, there is no redundancy, or sexual selection, and the genome is very small, so one change is a large percentage of their function. Viruses can tolerate a high death rate, because they replicate insanely.

In higher, larger vertebrates, mutations would be a serious penalty, and the species is generally trying hard to just stay afloat, and maintain form. I think all of the novel mutation experiments are done in fast-replicating, plentiful and mobile species. Obviously not much innovation in a panda bear, which is an example of something that has run out of options.

I see this effect in the wild wallabies that surround me. The bulk of the lines that occur are really doomed to failure, and it's just some dominant females that keep pumping out the good offspring. I had one cute one that turned up, who was friendly, but a bit smaller and weaker than normal. She died of a virus at 2yo. She just managed to create one child, who was a clone of herself, and that child also died, at 2yo, in the same way (she had a child that disappeared). I've seen a couple of strong wallabies who have lived long lives, but they have been too dumb to create mature offspring.

IC in lifeforms indicates design. The nature of the intelligent designer is still up in the air. It is clear he is extremely intelligent, and I am one of the few made in His image.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Quote

I'm now prepared to receive your apology for your various falsities and slander.

Admit it - you're engaging in some kind of a psychological or sociological experiment on this board. I suspect you have sufficient data at this point, so it's OK to come clean about it. I'm rather intrigued.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Jaime, for example, talks about Science like it is a person. Science depends on......, Science insert verb here.

Many of you fear the idea of a God. If there is a God, there might be a hell, is your logic, however irrational. Many of you live immoral lives, and have had several abortions, and you fear a God will have his revenge.

If you don't fear the idea of a God, then clearly you will see we were designed. The idea of God is no more "crazy" than the idea life sprung up out of the blue from non-life on its own. And had the ability to reproduce and generate DNA to provide the code for the various traits and parts of lifeforms

Jaime, for example, talks about Science like it is a person. Science depends on......, Science insert verb here.

Many of you fear the idea of a God. If there is a God, there might be a hell, is your logic, however irrational. Many of you live immoral lives, and have had several abortions, and you fear a God will have his revenge.

If you don't fear the idea of a God, then clearly you will see we were designed. The idea of God is no more "crazy" than the idea life sprung up out of the blue from non-life on its own. And had the ability to reproduce and generate DNA to provide the code for the various traits and parts of lifeforms

Since you have ignored everything else we have said, including the last post I did, explaining that atheists are OK with the concept of a god, but they dispute what type of god it is. Just say we acknowledged that a god designed life and the universe... where do we go from there?